----- Original Message -----
From: <mohamed.boucad...@orange.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2018 6:43 AM

> Hi Tom,
>
> I submitted a new revision of the draft which addresses your comments.
Thank you.
>

Med,

Yes, looks good,

Tom Petch

> Cheers,
> Med
>
> > -----Message d'origine-----
> > De : t.petch [mailto:ie...@btconnect.com]
> > Envoyé : mercredi 7 février 2018 17:48
> > À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN
> > Cc : draft-ietf-opsawg-nat-yang....@ietf.org; opsawg@ietf.org
> > Objet : Re: [OPSAWG] Opsdir early review of
draft-ietf-opsawg-nat-yang-10
> >
> > Med
> >
> > Looks good.  Two loose ends.
> >
> > On RFC6052 being a Normative reference from RFC7915 and so not
needing
> > further citing, well yes, I suppose so:-)
> >
> > On idnits and RFC7050, you cannot have an RFC style reference such
as
> > [RFCnnnn] in the YANG module, with the underlying <a href= ... > in
the
> > html version, because the YANG module must be capable of existing
> > outside the RFC, in plain text and not in HTML.  This is what
> > " Section 5.1 of [RFC7050]).  "
> > looks like to me, an attempt to create an HTML anchor that cannot
exist
> > in  plain text YANG module.  I do not know if idnits is clever
enough to
> > recognise a YANG (or MIB or ... ) module and know that RFC style
> > references cannot appear in it, although the character string 'RFC
nnnn'
> > or 'RFCnnnn' can do so.
> >
> > So if you have RFC nnnn in Normative or Informative References, you
must
> > have [RFCnnnn] somewhere in the text of the RFC outside the YANG
module;
> > and vice versa.
> >
> > Tom Petch
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: <mohamed.boucad...@orange.com>
> > To: "t.petch" <ie...@btconnect.com>
> > Cc: <draft-ietf-opsawg-nat-yang....@ietf.org>; <opsawg@ietf.org>
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2018 12:35 PM
> > Subject: RE: [OPSAWG] Opsdir early review of
> > draft-ietf-opsawg-nat-yang-10
> >
> >
> > > Hi Tom,
> > >
> > > Thank you for the careful review.
> > >
> > > Please see inline.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Med
> > >
> > > > -----Message d'origine-----
> > > > De : t.petch [mailto:ie...@btconnect.com]
> > > > Envoyé : mercredi 7 février 2018 13:01
> > > > À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN
> > > > Cc : draft-ietf-opsawg-nat-yang....@ietf.org; opsawg@ietf.org
> > > > Objet : Re: [OPSAWG] Opsdir early review of
> > draft-ietf-opsawg-nat-yang-10
> > > >
> > > > While you are at it, you might like to note
> > > >
> > > > s1.1
> > > > / A NAPT my use /A NAPT may use /
> > >
> > > [Med] Fixed.
> > >
> > > >
> > > >   feature siit {
> > > >   description
> > > >     ......
> > > >        The translator must support the stateless address mapping
> > > >        algorithm defined in RFC6052, which is the default
> > behavior.";
> > > >     reference
> > > >       "RFC 7915: IP/ICMP Translation Algorithm";
> > > >
> > > > If the algorithm in RFC6052 must be supported, I would expect
this
> > to
> > > > appear in the Reference clause
> > > >
> > >
> > > [Med] RFC6052 is not cited because it is already listed as a
normative
> > reference in "RFC 7915: IP/ICMP Translation Algorithm". I thought
this
> > is redundant. No?
> > >
> > > >  list nat64-prefixes {
> > > > .....
> > > >             Destination-based Pref64::/n is discussed in
> > > >             Section 5.1 of [RFC7050]). For example:
> > > >             192.0.2.0/24 is mapped to 2001:db8:122:300::/56.
> > > >             198.51.100.0/24 is mapped to 2001:db8:122::/48.";
> > > >          reference
> > > >            "Section 5.1 of RFC7050.";
> > > >
> > > > I see no RFC7050 in the Reference section of the I-D
> > >
> > > [Med] Fixed.
> > >
> > > What is strange, is that when I run idnits, I do have this error:
> > >
> > >   Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
> >
  --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > --------
> > >
> > >      (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative
> > references
> > >      to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)
> > >
> > >   == Unused Reference: 'RFC7050' is defined on line 3585, but no
> > explicit
> > >      reference was found in the text
> > >      '[RFC7050]  Savolainen, T., Korhonen, J., and D. Wing,
"Discovery
> > of...'
> > >
> > > It seems that idnits does not look at the citations in the YANG
> > module.
> > >
> > > I made this change to cite that RFC outside the YANG module:
> > >
> > > OLD:
> > >    o  Stateful NAT64
> > >
> > > NEW:
> > >    o  Stateful NAT64 (including with destination-based Pref64::/n
> > >       RFC7050])
> > >
> > > >
> > > >         leaf logging-enable {
> > > > ....
> > > >           reference
> > > >             "Section 2.3 of RFC 6908 and REQ-12 of RFC6888.";
> > > >         }
> > > >
> > > > I see no RFC6908 in the Reference section of the I-D
> > > >
> > >
> > > [Med] Fixed. Thanks.
> > >
> > > Idem as above. I made this change to make idnits happy:
> > >
> > > OLD:
> > >    This YANG module allows to instruct a NAT function to enable
the
> > >    logging feature.
> > >
> > > NEW:
> > >    This YANG module allows to instruct a NAT function to enable
the
> > >    logging feature (Section 2.3 of [RFC6908] and REQ-12 of
[RFC6888]).
> > >
> > >
> > > > Tom Petch
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: <mohamed.boucad...@orange.com>
> > > > To: "Joe Clarke" <jcla...@cisco.com>; "Tim Chown"
> > <tim.ch...@jisc.ac.uk>
> > > > Cc: <ops-...@ietf.org>;
<draft-ietf-opsawg-nat-yang....@ietf.org>;
> > > > <opsawg@ietf.org>
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2018 8:14 AM
> > > > Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Opsdir early review of
> > > > draft-ietf-opsawg-nat-yang-10
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Joe, all,
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks. Lets' then go that path.
> > > > >
> > > > > A new version which addresses the comments from Tim (remove
the
> > NPTv6
> > > > part + some minor edits) is available at:
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-nat-yang/?include_tex
> > > > t=1
> > > > >
> > > > > Tim, thank you for identifying this issue at this stage of the
> > > > publication process.
> > > > >
> > > > > One logistic question for the NPTv6 document, though: Should
it be
> > > > published (1) as draft-ietf-ospawg-* given that its content was
part
> > of
> > > > the document that was accepted by the WG and that passed the
WGLC or
> > (2)
> > > > as an individual document that will be handed to the AD together
> > with
> > > > draft-ietf-opsawg-nat-yang?
> > > > >
> > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > Med
> > > > >
> > >
> > >
>
>

_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list
OPSAWG@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg

Reply via email to